Radical anti-government "patriot" groups and militias, galvanized against gun control, will continue to grow even as the number of groups operating in the USAreached an all-time high in 2012, a report Tuesday by the Southern Poverty Law Center finds.

The center tracked 1,360 radical militias and anti-government groups in 2012, an eightfold increase over 2008, when it recorded 149 such groups.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, a non-profit civil rights advocacy group based in Montgomery, Ala., defines the patriot movement as groups of people who believe the federal government is conspiring to confiscate Americans' guns and curtail liberties to create a socialist government or "new order." Most are non-violent citizens groups. Some groups also include militias, which arm themselves and conduct military-style training, the center said.

So according to the SPLC, belonging or participating with a group of people that believe the federal government is pursuing a gun control agenda, as well as one that curtails individual liberties, as "radical". Gosh, last time I checked, this administration was wiping their posterior with the Constitution on an almost daily basis, and you can pick any one of several hundred ways in which they are doing that.

And is it really that "radical" to believe that the government climate in the United States is growing increasingly hostile towards gun owners? Granted, the most recent measure didn't pass, but there is no question which way the political winds are blowing.

This study strikes me as a cheap way to make it seem like there is some kind of vast right-wing conspiracy that is rapidly growing, and at any second could snap and decide to take over an armory. And if you read further, it makes it clear that there aren't "1,360 militias" in the United States; rather, there are 1,360 groups that believe in Constitutional rights (not just the 2nd amendment), and that makes them radical. lol

Maher just reports the news. Of course, he has his slant (which I agree with majority of the time) but he's not going to mix up or lie about stats or other data.

So according to the SPLC, belonging or participating with a group of people that believe the federal government is pursuing a gun control agenda, as well as one that curtails individual liberties, as "radical". Gosh, last time I checked, this administration was wiping their posterior with the Constitution on an almost daily basis, and you can pick any one of several hundred ways in which they are doing that.

And is it really that "radical" to believe that the government climate in the United States is growing increasingly hostile towards gun owners? Granted, the most recent measure didn't pass, but there is no question which way the political winds are blowing.

This study strikes me as a cheap way to make it seem like there is some kind of vast right-wing conspiracy that is rapidly growing, and at any second could snap and decide to take over an armory. And if you read further, it makes it clear that there aren't "1,360 militias" in the United States; rather, there are 1,360 groups that believe in Constitutional rights (not just the 2nd amendment), and that makes them radical. lol

I feel very much that if you think there is a war coming - people vs governement - to the point you're buying all kinds of guns and weapons... and you know there are many people like that in the South... then, yeah, you are a radical and a looney.

Those rights - gun ownership - were written in a different era, for different reasons, and shouldn't apply anymore. I know we won't agree on that so there is no point in discussing it.

90% of people in the US are reportedly in for tighter gun control, so the entire thing is being kept hostage by a small but powerful minority. BTW, there is nothing hostile toward gun owners. There simply needs to be more control over gun sales.

Quite frankly, in a country that is rapidly expanding domestic drone usage, increasing militarization of our domestic paramilitary police forces, continuing to erode our civil liberties, etc, I don't understand what is so irrational about arming your family or stockpiling guns.

I mean, come on...there has been a rapid deterioration of our rights as American citizens for years now. It's weird to me that this is widely accepted by a large portion of the political spectrum, but when it's suggested that the feds would move against the 2nd amendment, that's somehow "looney" or "crazy talk".

I'm not sure how the government is moving against the 2nd amendment, shaf. They don't want to take away guns from people who really want them and are safe to own, they just want some control over it. I think that's mostly propaganda from the gun lobby. As I said earlier, if you must register a car, you should have to register a weapon. We need a database, regular check-ins, and strong punishment for people who give or sell their gun away to another person who could very well be too crazy to own one.

shafnutz05 wrote:Quite frankly, in a country that is rapidly expanding domestic drone usage, increasing militarization of our domestic paramilitary police forces, continuing to erode our civil liberties, etc, I don't understand what is so irrational about arming your family or stockpiling guns.

Sarcastic wrote:I'm not sure how the government is moving against the 2nd amendment, shaf. They don't want to take away guns from people who really want them and are safe to own, they just want some control over it. I think that's mostly propaganda from the gun lobby. As I said earlier, if you must register a car, you should have to register a weapon. We need a database, regular check-ins, and strong punishment for people who give or sell their gun away to another person who could very well be too crazy to own one.

While I don't disagree with common-sense stuff like background checks, you simply cannot compare owning a car to owning a gun. Gun ownership is a right Constitutionally protected by the 2nd amendment. Car ownership and operation is not.

I think another thing that scares gun owners is how absolutely stupid and uneducated so many of the strongest gun control advocates in Congress and the media are. They honestly wouldn't know what an assault weapon was if they had a week to read the whole Wikipedia article about it. They have absolutely no concept of what any of the terminology means, or how the guns actually work. Instead, they latch onto a politically opportune buzzword (in the current case, ZOMG ASSAULT WEAPONS), without having any concept of what that term actually means.

shafnutz05 wrote:Quite frankly, in a country that is rapidly expanding domestic drone usage, increasing militarization of our domestic paramilitary police forces, continuing to erode our civil liberties, etc, I don't understand what is so irrational about arming your family or stockpiling guns.

shafnutz05 wrote:Quite frankly, in a country that is rapidly expanding domestic drone usage, increasing militarization of our domestic paramilitary police forces, continuing to erode our civil liberties, etc, I don't understand what is so irrational about arming your family or stockpiling guns.

I'll agree with shaf that the country is moving more toward one I'm uncomfortable with - having lived under Communism as a kid, I know what 'civil liberties', or lack of, are. But I think many people are too paranoid and they truly don't know how good they have it in the US. Something like increased gun control shouldn't be an issue, imo.

Last edited by Sarcastic on Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Shyster wrote:3. What about unintended effects? If it’s harder for criminals to obtain guns from, for example, straw purchasers, then criminals may increase their efforts to steal them from law-abiding gun owners. Would it be acceptable for you for burglaries and home invasions to significantly increase merely for the sake of more background checks?

I don't know how a criminal would know if someone owns a gun or where they keep it. That's all just guessing at this point anyway.

Ask the publishers of the New York Journal how to find out the names and addresses of gun owners, and how to make that information public knowledge.

My father-in-law's house was broken into 3-4 years ago, the only items that were taken was about $5,000 in case and 9 pistols (including the commemorative piece he got when he graduated from the FBI Academy) and 2 rifles. Police suspected that the motive was getting the guns and that the cash was a quick target of opportunity. It also strongly implies that that perpetrators had knowledge of the inside of the house.

Fwiw, three of the weapons were recovered at a local pawn shop - among them the FBI revolver - but no one was ever arrested.

That's pretty creepy, tif, but I don't think it's normal for a paper to do that. Is there a way for a criminal to find such a database another method? I'm not sure a guy would break into a cop's home to steal a gun, however.

1. How will you convince a gun owner to enter his guns into a database? Say he doesn’t want to. If there is no database, then the government doesn’t know who is failing to register with the database. Sure you can make it illegal to not register, but that’s like making it illegal to drive more than 55 mph on a remote highway where drivers know with certainty that no cops are around for miles.

Hard to get all guns in the database at this point, but this is the exact failure of the government lacking the balls to force this issue years ago. But you have to start somewhere. And maybe you can add some incentive for existing owners to register the older stuff they have. Listen. If you have to register your CAR and whatever else you can think of, there is no reason why one shouldn't register a GUN that can actually kill people. This shouldn't even be an argument, but I believe it is because of all the dumb hicks in the South who think there is a war coming with the government and they just don't want to let go. And, of course, the lobby that keeps pushing and pushing the fight to ensure less regulations and more gunsales.

There are no organizations devoted to banning and confiscating cars. There are organizations—like the Brady Campaign, MAIG, and the VPC—that have the avowed purpose of banning and confiscating guns. While there is not public support for that goal, they view each incremental step of increased gun control as a step towards that goal. Representatives of those organizations have made explicit statements that they want to see the end of private gun ownership.

As I’ve said on here before, gun owners view a national gun registry with the same level of skepticism that a Jew would hold when facing proposals from neo-Nazi organizations for the establishment of a national Jewish registry. In both cases, it’s rather obvious that the purpose of the registry is to serve as Step One for a subsequent Step Two of elimination. For a great many gun owners, there is no way in hell they would ever register anything with the government. And evidence shows that noncompliance has been rampant in past registration efforts. Heck, even in Canada far less than half of gun owners registered their guns with the national database. Do you really think Americans would be even that compliant?

And gun owners are not all “hicks.” From a survey conducted by the NSSF, the typical owner of a modern sporting rifle (called “assault weapons” by anti-gunners) is 35-plus years old, married, and has at least some college education. 88% have attended or graduated from college. 52% report an annual household income of $75k or more, and almost a quarter make $110k per year or more. Sound like a bunch of toothless country bumpkins? I have plenty of friends who shoot, hunt, and own guns, and every one of them is a college graduate with a professional or technical job. Not one is a professional possum hunter.